Gill v. State ( 2014 )


Menu:
  • In the Supreme Court of Georgia
    Decided: November 17, 2014
    S14A1529. GILL v. THE STATE.
    MELTON, Justice.
    Following a jury trial, Robert Lee Gill was found guilty of felony murder,
    aggravated battery, and aggravated assault in connection with the beating death
    of Terry Lynn Carson.1 On appeal Gill contends that the evidence was
    insufficient to support the verdict and that the trial court erred by excluding at
    trial certain medical records evidence pertaining to the victim. We affirm.
    1. Viewed in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, the evidence
    reveals that, on June 18, 2012, Gill got into a verbal and then physical
    altercation with his co-worker, Carson. After the initial altercation had ended,
    1
    On July 31, 2012, Gill was indicted for malice murder, two counts of
    felony murder (predicated on aggravated assault and aggravated battery),
    aggravated assault, and aggravated battery. Following a July 8-12, 2013 jury
    trial, Gill was found guilty on all charges except malice murder. On July 17,
    2013, the trial court sentenced Gill to life imprisonment for felony murder, and
    the remaining charges were merged for sentencing purposes. Gill filed a motion
    for new trial on July 12, 2013, which he amended on August 1, 2013. The trial
    court denied the motion on May 5, 2014. Following the payment of costs, Gill’s
    timely appeal was docketed in this Court for the September 2014 Term and
    submitted for decision on the briefs.
    and in the presence of several eyewitnesses, Gill approached the unarmed
    Carson from behind and hit him in the back of the head with a large piece of
    wood, fracturing his skull. Carson fell to the ground, and Gill continued to kick
    him in the head. Carson was taken to the hospital, where he later died from his
    injuries.
    This evidence was sufficient to enable a rational trier of fact to reject
    Gill’s claim of self-defense and find him guilty of the crime of which he was
    convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 
    443 U.S. 307
     (99 SCt
    2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979); Bostic v. State, 
    294 Ga. 845
    , 846 (1) (757 SE2d 59)
    (2014) (“The question of justification was a matter for the jury, which was free
    to reject [the defendant’s] version of the events”) (citation omitted).
    2. Gill argues that the trial court erred by excluding from evidence at trial
    certain toxicology reports that would have allegedly shown that Carson may
    have been under the influence of drugs at the time of his altercation with Gill.
    However, “[e]vidence of drug use is inadmissible when it is intended only to
    impugn a victim's character and has no relevance to any disputed issues in the
    case.” (Footnote omitted.) Crowe v. State, 
    277 Ga. 513
    , 514 (591 SE2d 829)
    (2004). See also Robinson v. State, 
    272 Ga. 131
    , 133 (3) (527 SE2d 845) (2000)
    2
    (toxicology report showing presence of cocaine metabolites in the victim’s
    blood was irrelevant where there was no showing of “what, if any, effect
    cocaine had on [the victim] at the time of his fatal argument with appellant”).
    Here, there has been no showing of how any drugs that were allegedly in
    Carson’s system may have been affecting his behavior at the time of his fatal
    encounter with Gill. Gill merely speculates that drugs could have been affecting
    Carson at the time of the incident, which is an insufficient basis for the
    toxicology reports relating to Carson to be admitted into evidence at trial. Bell
    v. State, 
    280 Ga. 562
     (4) (629 SE2d 213) (2006). See also, e.g., James v. State,
    
    270 Ga. 675
    , 676 (2) (513 SE2d 207) (1999) (exclusion of expert testimony on
    victim’s marijuana use was proper where “the defense could not demonstrate
    how the use of drugs contributed to behavior of the victim that would have been
    relevant to [the defendant’s] justification defense”). We find no abuse of
    discretion in the trial court’s refusal to admit evidence of the victim’s toxicology
    reports.
    3. For all of the reasons stated above, Gill’s remaining enumeration
    regarding the trial court’s denial of his motion for new trial lacks merit.
    Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: S14A1529

Judges: Melton

Filed Date: 11/17/2014

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/7/2024